HanoverCollege

This study investigated the
relationships between motivation and perceived relatedness (PR).Athletes (N = 243) from 10 schools in
NCAA Division I, II, and III and NAIA II (in California and Indiana) completed
the Sport Motivation Scale and the Perceived Relatedness Scale.Results indicate that PR intimacy can predict
the unique variance for intrinsic motivation (IM) stimulation and extrinsic
motivation (EM) identification.PR acceptance
can predict the unique variance for IM knowledge, IM accomplishment, and amotivation. Results are discussed in terms of the
self-determination theory.

Introduction

Several different variables may
motivate athletes.Internal (intrinsic)
types of motivators (e.g. the challenge of a new activity) motivate some
athletes and external (extrinsic) types of factors (e.g. rewards, trophies)
motivate other athletes.Those who are
more intrinsically motivated express more self-determination, which is the
innate desire for free choice of one’s acts without external compulsion (Ryan,
1991).On the contrary, those who are
more extrinsically motivated express less self-determination.In other words, external factors such as
rewards exert more influence on one’s choice of actions when one is less
self-determined.This research addresses
whether the satisfaction of one’s psychological needs,
in particular, the desire to feel close to significant others, facilitates
intrinsic motivation.

The Self-Determination Theory

Deci and Ryan (1985, 1987) explained intrinsic and
extrinsic motivators and their influence on self-determination in their theory
of self-determination.Self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985,
1987) is a quality of human functioning that involves the experience of a
choice.In other words, it is the
experience of an internal locus of causality.It describes the processes of “self-rule” because it conveys the
tendency toward being an origin (deCharms, 1968 as
cited in Ryan, 1991) with regard to action and toward transforming external
regulations (pressure from coaches, rewards, etc.) into self-regulation where
possible.In simpler words, “self-determination
is the capacity or fundamental need to choose and to have choices, rather than
reinforcement contingencies, drives, or any other forces or pressures, to be
the determinants of one’s actions” (Deci & Ryan,
1985).

To summarize
and organize the self-determination theory, Vallerand
developed the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (Vallerand, 1997; Vallerand & Losier, 1999).The
sequence would follow as such: “Social factors Ý Psychological
Mediators Ý
Types of Motivation Ý Consequences”(Figure
1).In short, this would read: social
factors influence athletes’ perceptions of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness (which constitute the psychological mediators or needs), which in
turn determines their motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic), and then the
motivation leads to consequences.This
model is useful in the fact that it allows researchers to review existing sport
research on both the determinants and consequences of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation.

The self-determination theory
posits that innate psychological needs (also called mediators) drive one’s
intrinsic motivation.Three needs are
especially fundamental when determining the impetus behind action: autonomy,
competence, and relatedness.The need
for autonomy refers to the desire to be self-initiating in the regulation of
one’s actions (deCharms, 1968).In autonomy,
one experiences the self (the vital core of a person) to be an agent, the
“locus of causality” of one’s behavior.In other words, autonomy entails a sense of freedom, responsibility, and
control (Ryan, 1991).The second need is
for competence (referred to as effectance by early
researchers), which suggests that all people want to interact effectively with
the environment (White, 1959; Harter, 1978).Finally, relatedness pertains to the desire to feel connected with
significant others (Ryan, 1991).(Relatedness will be discussed in much greater detail in a later
section.)Together, these three
elemental needs are necessary to facilitate the growth and actualization of
human potentiality (Vallerand & Losier, 1999).

Individuals are intrinsically
motivated to pursue situations that will satisfy their basic psychological
needs.In support of this, Piaget once
said that the pleasure in mastery, in effectance (or
competence), in assimilating, and in experiencing action merely for its own
sake is a basic fact of psychic life (Piaget, 1952 as cited in Ryan,
1991).Consequently, one does not pursue
situations that do not satisfy these needs.From a conceptual point of view, it should be noted that conditions that
athletes perceive will facilitate their basic needs of autonomy, competence,
and relatedness are also perceived as providing opportunities to facilitate
motivation.People see these
opportunities as operators for fulfilling the three innate needs; therefore,
the behavior will be pursued.This is
especially interesting to researchers because the theory allows an
identification of social conditions that will facilitate intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic
and Extrinsic Motivation and Amotivation

Motivation can be divided
into three different categories: intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation
(Deci & Ryan, 1985).Intrinsic motivation (IM) is participating in
an activity for itself, out of interest, and/or for the pleasure and
satisfaction derived from simply performing it (Fortier, Vallerand,
Briere & Provencher,
1995).Athletes who participate in sport
purely for the love of it or for the challenge that it provides are displaying
intrinsic motivation, and are said to be highly self-determined.

Intrinsic motivation has been postulated to
have three separate categories: IM to know, IM to accomplish things, and IM to
experience stimulation (Vallerand, 1997; Vallerand, Blais, Briere, & Pelletier, 1989).IM to know is defined as engaging in an
activity for the pleasure and the satisfaction that one experiences while
learning, exploring, or trying to understand something new (Vallerand
& Fortier, 1998).IM towards
accomplishment focuses on engaging in a given activity for the pleasure and
satisfaction experienced while one is attempting to surpass oneself
or to accomplish or create something.The focus is on the process of accomplishing and not on the end
result.Finally, intrinsic motivation to
experience stimulation is operative when one engages in an activity in order to
experience pleasant sensations associated mainly with one’s senses (e.g. sensory
and aesthetic pleasure).

Extrinsic motivation
(EM), on the other hand, is not related to the satisfaction from the activity
itself but from factors related externally, such as rewards and
punishment.An athlete who competes for
prestige, for camaraderie, to gain a trim physique, or to avoid punishment is
motivated extrinsically (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vallerand & Perrault,
1999).An extrinsically motivated person
may also be self-determined because three categories of extrinsic motivation
exist, some of which are self-determined and may be performed through
choice.

The
three types of extrinsic motivation, in order from least self-determined to
most self-determined, are external regulation, introjected
regulation, and identification.External regulation refers to constraints and rewards that may regulate
behavior, such as a coach who forces a player to play a particular sport.Introjected
regulation refers to internal reasons that are limited by the internalization
of past external contingencies. Guilt, anxiety, or related self-esteem dynamics
are the enforcers of this introjected
regulation.Through introjection,
direct reliance on external regulation is minimized but is transformed or
reconstructed in terms of inner, affective determinants that still retain a
quality of pressure and conflict, or lack of complete integration with the self
(Ryan, 1991).Finally, there is
identification, which refers to the internalization of extrinsic motivations
regulated to the extent that the behavior becomes valued and judged important
for the individual as being chosen by oneself.Both introjected
regulation and identification are internalized reasons for acting (thus these
types of EM are partially self-determined) and external regulation is a purely
external motivation.Nevertheless, all
three are categorized as external motivation.

The third motivation, amotivation, is characterized by the thought that actions
have no control over outcomes (Deci & Ryan,
1985).In other words, amotivated athletes believe that forces out of their
control determine behaviors.Amotivation is similar to learned helplessness (Abramson,
Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978) and may result after an athlete has had a
series of setbacks, such as chronic injury.Therefore, an athlete who is amotivated, or
has become non-motivated, may soon stop to participate in sport because he/she
does not know why he/she is competing anymore.

The different types of
motivation represent different levels of self-determination.Intrinsic motivation (I find it enjoyable
to…) is the highest in self-determination followed by the extrinsic motivations
of identified regulation (I believe it is important to…), introjected
regulation (I’d feel guilty if I didn’t…), external regulation (I’ll get in
trouble if I don’t…), and amotivation (I don’t know
why I bother anymore…).These
motivations constitute the self-determination continuum (Vallerand
& Bissonnette, 1992, Ryan, 1991; Figure 2).

The Psychological Mediator of Relatedness

Bowlby said of relatedness, “The propensity to make strong
emotional bonds to particular individuals[is] a basic component of human
nature” (Bowlby, 1988 as cited in Ryan, 1993).In addition, Fairbairn
(1954) posited that people are innately “object seeking,” meaning that we
naturally seek connection and relatedness with others.Even more, humans tend to seek relatedness
and connection to others as much as food and sex (Bowlby,
1988).Ryan explained that humans strive
for cohesion and integration of the individual within a social matrix.He states, “The principle of organization
pertains beyond the individual, and concerns the unity among and between
persons on which the continuity of all being depends” (1991).The need for relatedness suggests that there
must be some interactions where authentic relating happens if the self is to
feel sustained, enhanced, and coherent.

As a
fundamental motivation in itself, the need to belong and form social
attachments should stimulate goal-directed activity to satisfy it (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).People tend to seek out interpersonal
contacts and cultivate possible relationships until they have reached a minimum
level of social contact and relatedness.Moreover, social bonds form easily, readily, and without requiring
highly particular or conducive settings.Furthermore, people who have anything in common or even tend to be
exposed to each other frequently tend to form friendships or other
attachments.In addition, people tend to
resist losing attachments and breaking social bonds, even if there is no reason
to maintain them.Social
attachments that form through shared unpleasant experiences is especially
compelling support for the belief that people innately desire to belong.

There are two
common elements that define relatedness.First, the majority of research maintains that feelings of relatedness
comprise a dimension of feeling accepted by others (thus, acceptance
relatedness).Second, we can also
identify a dimension of intimacy with others (thus, intimacy relatedness)
(Ryan, 1991).

The need of relatedness has many
implications in athletics.Sports teams
provide a social framework from which the individual must work.The athlete cannot ignore this framework and
he/she feels a desire to fit within it.Consequently, the need for relatedness may play a significant role in
the dynamics of sports.Furthermore, one
might hypothesize that sports provide many athletes with an outlet to satisfy
their need for relatedness.This may
also explain why some people reject sports.In effect, some people may feel that sports do not satisfy their need
for relatedness.In this case, these
people would be intrinsically motivated to pursue satisfaction of this need in
other contexts.

The Present Study

The present
study will explore the relatively untouched mediator of relatedness to
ascertain the relationships between relatedness and motivation.Further research is warranted in the areas of
motivation and relatedness for several reasons.First of all, although much research has been completed regarding
motivation in general, few studies have examined them in light of the cognitive
evaluation theory (Fortier et al., 1995).In studies that have looked at the cognitive evaluation theory, most
research has focused on intrinsic motivation and has overlooked extrinsic
motivation (Fortier et al., 1995, Amorose & Horn,
2000).Furthermore, most studies
previous to Fortier et al.’s (1995) did not study motivation concerning the
engagement of sport activity.In other
words, they did not ask the question, “Why do you participate in sport?” Lastly,
studies on relatedness, especially in an athletics setting, are sparse.While research on competence and autonomy is
prevalent, few researchers have looked at the need of relatedness in a sport
context.

I
hypothesize that there is a relationship between motivation and
relatedness.I propose that those with
high relatedness will have high levels of intrinsic motivation.Conversely, I propose that those with low
levels of relatedness will have significantly higher levels of extrinsic
motivation.

Athletes completed a demographic
questionnaire and two psychological questionnaires, the first being the English
version of the Sport Motivation Scale that was developed by N. M. Briere in French (Briere, Vallerand, Blais, & Pelletier,1995). The SMS consists of seven sub-scales that measure
the three types of motivation: intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation.There are four items per sub-scale, thus
there are a total of 28 items being assessed. Each item represents a possible
reason why the athletes participate in his/her sport.Subjects must rate the extent to which each
item corresponds to one of their participation motives on a seven-point likert scale, ranging from “not at all” (1) to “exactly”
(7).

The English questionnaire is valid,
consistent, and reliable.Pelletier,
Fortier, Vallerand, and Tuson
(1995) found that the English translation questionnaire has a satisfactory
level of internal consistency.Additionally, correlations between the subscales and confirmatory factor
analyses have confirmed the determination continuum and the construct validity
of the scale.The test-retest
reliability of the scale has also been confirmed (Pelletier et al, 1995).

Relatedness is being measured with the
Perceived Relatedness Scale, developed by Richer and Vallerand
(1999).This bi-dimensional scale
consists of two sub-scales measuring intimacy and acceptance.There are five items per sub-scale, for a
total of ten statements.Each item
explores the way an athlete feels towards his/her teammates.Participants rate the degree to which they
agree with each of the ten statements.Each statement is in Likert scale form, with
(1) representing the lowest level of agreement with the statement, “not at
all,” and (7) representing the highest level of agreement, “very
strongly.”

The Perceived Relatedness Scale was
validated in French, but not English.The sub-scales of the questionnaire displayed adequate levels of
internal consistency.Test-retest correlations
revealed fairly high levels of stability.Internal validity and internal consistency were also confirmed.Two students of French independently
translated the scale in English.Their
translations were compared.Then a
French professor refined their translation.

Procedure

Coaches were
contacted during and before their seasons.The purpose of the study and procedures were explained.Appointments were scheduled for the
researcher to personally administer the questionnaires to the athletes.Meetings were before or after a scheduled
practice.The researcher informed the
athletes on the nature of the study, assured confidentiality, and given
instructions on how to complete the questionnaires.Athletes who agreed to complete the
questionnaires signed a letter of informed consent and then were given the
questionnaires.The researcher gave the
athletes as much time as they needed, allowing them to ask questions at any
time.In some cases, coaches were
present during the administration of the surveys.

Results

The ratings of motivation were tabulated for each participant
and then their scores were added for the four items that represented each of
the seven motivation types.For
relatedness, the scores were added for the five items that represented the two
types of relatedness.Means were found
for the combined scores of each motivation and relatedness type.The mean was 4.22 (SD = 1.31) for IM
knowledge, 5.11 (SD = 1.22) for IM accomplishment, and 5.23 (SD =
1.07) for IM stimulation.The mean was
3.69 (SD = 1.36) for EM introjection, 3.89 (SD
= 1.32) for EM external regulation, and 4.72 (SD = 1.20) for EM
identification.The mean for amotivation was 2.26 (SD = 1.20).The mean for PR acceptance was 5.31 (SD
= 1.25) and for PR intimacy was 5.06 (SD = 1.37).

Relationships of Motivation and
Relatedness

Entering acceptance and intimacy as predictors
and IM stimulation, IM accomplishment, IM knowledge, EM identification, and amotivation as the outcome variables, yielded significant
overall equations (see Tables 1-7).For
IM stimulation, only intimacy accounted for much of this variation.Acceptance was the only predictor for IM
accomplishment, and acceptance approached significance (but intimacy did not)
as a predictor for IM knowledge.Acceptance and Intimacy could not account for variation in the extrinsic
motivations of EM external regulation and EM introjected
regulation.Intimacy alone approached
significance in predicting the unique variation for EM identification.Finally, acceptance (but not intimacy) did
significantly predict for amotivation.

Discussion

The results of the present study
lend support to the hypothesis that there would be relationships between the
different motivations and relatedness.The multiple regression analyses indicate that relatedness (both
acceptance and intimacy) is a predictor of several types of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation and amotivation.For IM stimulation, intimacy was the greatest
predictor.For IM knowledge and IM
accomplishment, acceptance was the greatest predictor.In other words, those who participated in
sports to fulfill intimacy needs were motivated intrinsically to participate in
sport in order to experience stimulation.Likewise, those who participated in sport to fulfill needs for acceptance
also were intrinsically motivated to participate in sport to gain knowledge
about sport and to experience accomplishment. See Figure 3.

There also appears to be a
relationship between EM identification and intimacy.Athletes who are extrinsically motivated to
participate in sport due to identification (and thus an internal valuing of
external rewards) seem to satisfy their need for intimacy.This relationship between EM identification
and intimacy was positive, and not negative as hypothesized.Moreover, since EM identification is the most
self-determined of the extrinsic motivations, there appears to be greater
support for the hypothesis that intrinsic motivations (the highly
self-determined motivations) would be positively related to high ratings of
relatedness.Moreover, these results
indicate that when an athlete perceives low acceptance, their motivation may
suffer from a lack of need satisfaction, and amotivation
may increase.

These results
fall into line with the self-determination theory (Deci
& Ryan, 1985).The
self-determination theory would predict that those who have high perceptions of
relatedness would also have high intrinsic motivations, since our needs are
being met.It would also predict that if
one did not have high relatedness, one would not be motivated to participate in
sports.It argues that since being
related to others is a desire for all humans, one who did not enjoy the
benefits of relatedness in sport would seek relatedness elsewhere (academics,
clubs, family) and might be compelled to quit their respective sport.

Neither
acceptance nor intimacy was a good predictor for extrinsic motivations, as may
be predicted by the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci,
2000).Therefore, one must take a look
at the other psychological mediators (or needs).Competence and autonomy (both covered in
cognitive evaluation theory) might be better predictors for extrinsic
motivations.Since autonomy addresses
the need for freedom, responsibility, and control, external factors such as
rewards and constraints might have a relationship with autonomy instead of
relatedness.Ryan and Deci (2000) note the self-determination theory proposition
that extrinsic motivation can vary greatly in its relative autonomy.Athletes engage in some activities because of
personal endorsement and a feeling of choice (similar to EM identification) and
others because of compliance with an external regulation (EM external
regulation).Therefore, extrinsic
motivations vary along the self-determination continuum. Nevertheless,
extrinsic factors such as rewards might also be closely related to variations
in competence, which would affect one’s motivation.